4 ms·

I'm absolutely not for these cuts, and I believe that social sciences are important. Nonetheless, the politicization and radicalization of social sciences in th

I'm absolutely not for these cuts, and I believe that social sciences are important. Nonetheless, the politicization and radicalization of social sciences in the last 15 years is undeniably problematic, and plays a role in the balcanization of society. Academic detachment from reality is a problem even smart academics can joke about, as they know it is somewhat of a true trope. The ones that certainly laugh about that the least are a lot of social scientists, in my experience. They are also often very far from considering the complexity of economics in their fields of studies, and that's also an issue. Sprinkle some identity politics dust on it, and you have the perfect recipe for disaster, offering conservatives and anti-progressists your academic head on a silver platter. I believe that social sciences (yep, it's a generalization, I know...) have failed to play academic politics properly in the last two decades, mostly due to radicalization of ideas and topics.

thinkingemote 2y ago
The irony is that it's the same non-academic organisations that are deciding those topics to get funded and who now are deciding to cut the funding. Academics have to apply for funding and one big criteria over the years has been it's "social impact". So there's three things. The politics of those in charge of funding. The change of academia to only allow research deemed socially useful (utilitarianism). And the third is the co-adoption of researchers themselves. As politics change the response should be to change the criteria and agenda of funding to make it less radical not to cut the funding. Furthermore these organisations have, over the years enlarged and entrenched themselves. This is why millions are spent on thousands of people to monitor DEI of the academics.
- mike_hearn 2y ago
  Implicit in the request for research with social impact was that it should be positive social impact, as perceived by most people not just one partisan wing. > As politics change the response should be to change the criteria and agenda of funding to make it less radical If it were that easy it'd have been done already. You can't tell radical activists to just be reasonable.
gilleain 2y ago
Not particularly important, but it is 'balkanization' with a k.

thinkingemote 2y ago

The irony is that it's the same non-academic organisations that are deciding those topics to get funded and who now are deciding to cut the funding. Academics have to apply for funding and one big criteria over the years has been it's "social impact". So there's three things. The politics of those in charge of funding. The change of academia to only allow research deemed socially useful (utilitarianism). And the third is the co-adoption of researchers themselves. As politics change the response should be to change the criteria and agenda of funding to make it less radical not to cut the funding. Furthermore these organisations have, over the years enlarged and entrenched themselves. This is why millions are spent on thousands of people to monitor DEI of the academics.

mike_hearn 2y ago
Implicit in the request for research with social impact was that it should be positive social impact, as perceived by most people not just one partisan wing. > As politics change the response should be to change the criteria and agenda of funding to make it less radical If it were that easy it'd have been done already. You can't tell radical activists to just be reasonable.

gilleain 2y ago

Not particularly important, but it is 'balkanization' with a k.